Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Recently on a.r.e - plagiarism

Expand Messages
  • prometheus_973
    Yes, Doug Marman is as much of a twit as Twitch! On thetruthseeker.com site 2/8/2004 Marman responds to questions by Joey Ward by saying, I don t do yes or no
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 19, 2005
      Yes, Doug Marman is as much of a twit as Twitch!

      On thetruthseeker.com site 2/8/2004 Marman responds to questions by
      Joey Ward by saying,

      "I don't do yes or no questions, but I will try to keep my answers
      short:... 3. Did Paul Twitchell copy other writers works? Yes. Well,
      I guess I can give yes or no answers sometimes. 4. Did Paul
      Twitchell use other writers words and put his Eck masters names on
      them as if the Eck Master were saying them? Yes. 5. Who do you Trust
      to tell the truth about Spiritual truths? Pick one only. [Names
      omitted] I see all teachings as mines. The good ones are gold mines,
      but they all need to be sorted through to find the pure gold. I have
      found no outer teachings that are pure gold."

      In that same long winded post Marman responds to others. Here he
      responds to Nacal by saying, "You wrote, 'The sad thing is that
      there is no freedom in religion... there is only control through the
      use of fear and surrender of the common sense of having an open
      mind, and of course, the dangled carrot of initiation and hope.' It
      certainly seems that way. To me, without freedom there is no point
      to a spiritual teaching. It is simply a social group. There is more
      peer presure and more influence from people who want everyone to be
      harmonious rather than speaking honestly, than control from above,
      but in general I agree with you."

      So, in review, it seems that Marman can't even say that the outer
      (physical plane) teachings of Eckankar are pure! But, if he had
      he would have been contradicting himself (like Klemp does) after his
      own admissions about Twitchell's dishonesty.

      And, after all, Marman has pointed out, on his own site, that
      Twitchell was in "Paris, Kentucky" visiting his step-sister Kay-Dee
      while she was at art school and not in "Paris, France." I guess that
      her studying with a famous art master, and such, were exaggerations
      by Twitch as well! Where did the lies begin and end with Twitchell,
      or did they ever end? Actually, the existance of the LEM/Mahanta is
      proof that the lies haven't ended!


      ctecvie wrote:

      Dear all,

      this is, in my view, an excellent article about plagiarism of Paul
      Twitchell. Enjoy!

      ******** quote *******

      We are All the Victims Doug
      by DarwinTwitchell@[EMAIL PROTECTED] Dec 18, 2005 at 11:09 AM


      The whole issue of plagiarism is only about whether Paul should have
      put a footnote in his book to show where the passage came from.
      Borrowing the passage was not the problem. The only issue is whether
      he should have noted where it came from.


      Wow, miles of yarn to get to the point. Well, duh. Of course
      borrowing passages is not the problem. Passing off the exact hard-
      earned words of others as your own has always been the problem.
      That's why, in school, the teacher always said about the next
      essay, "In your *own* words..."



      Paul certainly mentioned Walter Russell and his books as great books
      to read, but he didn't mark the exact passages or put footnotes when
      he used them. So, who is the victim?


      We are the victims, all of Paul Twitchell's readers. He
      misrepresented himself. He not only plagiarized extensively, he flat-
      out fabricated extensively. As in "made things up". Your
      argument "nobody loses" is flat out wrong. We all lose. Look how
      much eckankar has lost because of Paul's dishonesty and deceptions.
      Think of the hours of your life and my life we've given to this
      sorry subject. Like Sisyphus, you keep pushing the big rock of
      plagiarism up the hill just to watch it roll down again, usually
      right over the top of you. There is no way to spin, to mitigate, to
      excuse Paul's lack of attribution, much less his putting Julian
      Johnson's words into "rebazar tarzs" mouth. This is premediatated
      deception, plain and simple. I know it, you know it and every
      teacher in the world knows it. The NY Times knows it. Only a
      deluded and impressionable True Believer could be convinced it was
      somehow noble of Paul, in his great rush to deliver the great message
      that, in between bouts of chasing women, he had to plagiarize freely
      and copiously to beat that devil Kal to the finish line.

      That dog doesn't hunt Doug and in your guts I think you know it.
      You're right Doug, I do disrespect you. I think you are as least as
      phony and duplicitous as Paul was, and Darwin and Harold. You all
      know Paul's conduct was unacceptable by any righteous standard yet
      you all are so emotionally and monetarily invested that you won't
      admit it and for decades have kept up the charade that there is
      nothing "rotten in Denmark".

      Such a man as Paul Twitchell might have inspired Samuel Johnson's
      famous piece of sarcasm: "Your manuscript is both good and original;
      but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is
      original is not good."

      The following quote from an article called *The Unoriginal Sin* By
      Roy Peter Clark puts, I think, Paul's copious plagiarims and
      fabrications into the proper arena. You assisidously try to keep his
      transgressions in the technical field. They belong in the field of
      human psychology. Paul appears to have been, as Ford Johnson so
      eloquently makes the case, suffering from Mythomania and Delusions
      of Grandeur, at the very least.

      Quote: (See how easy it is to quote Doug?)

      "In the most serious cases, plagiarism is a human problem rather
      than a technical one. It is practiced by people under duress, people
      who act without grace under pressure. Editors need to be sensitive
      to those pressures.

      Surely the saddest case was that of Emily Ann Fisher, a
      reporter/intern at The Washington Post who was a Phi Beta Kappa
      graduate of Harvard. In July of 1973, she inserted dialogue from
      Catcher in the Rye into a feature story she had written for the
      Post. She was fired. Friends say she was a brilliant, deeply
      troubled woman who had a photographic memory. No one is sure how
      intentional her act was or what emotional pressures led her to
      borrow from Salinger. But she later took her life.

      Ultimately, it is the plagiarist who suffers most from plagiarism.
      This self-inflicted pain was well expressed by a veteran reporter
      from the St. Petersburg Times, who in July of 1979 kidnapped about
      one-third of a magazine article on credit cards from Changing Times.
      On the day of her resignation, she pinned a brave letter to the
      newsroom bulletin board: "Twelve years of dedicated journalism down
      the drain because of a stupid mistake," she wrote. "I am writing
      this public explanation for a selfish reason. It will be easier for
      me to live with myself knowing that the truth is known. But I hope
      my mistake will serve as a lesson to others. I have let the Times
      down. I have let myself down. But most of all, I have let the
      profession down. And for that I am truly sorry."

      End Quote.

      Do you still think nobody gets hurt by plagiarism Doug?

      If eckankar is to survive, much less grow, some ekist of character
      will have to come along and set the record straight, admit the
      truth, close the astral library, and make whatever amends necessary.

      Too bad that doesn't appear to be you Doug.

      ******* Unquote *******
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.